ORDER : This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dated 17.07.2018, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, which was filed challenging the order, dated 30.09.2015, allowing the petition in I.A. No.81 of 2015 in O.S.No.54 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the plaint schedule property of Ac.4.00 cents in government dry Sy.No.13 (Ac.2.75 cents + Ac.125 cents), Ac.0.70 cents in government dry Sy.No.17-1 and Ac.2.00 cents in government dry Sy.No.10, all within the specified boundaries mentioned in the schedule. 2. Heard Sri Karibasaiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri V.D.Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 3. 3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff, in brief, is that Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vannappa S/o Beerappa was the absolute owner and in possession of 1/8th share in Ac.19.06 cents in government dry Sy.No.17 (Ac.2.38 cents), 1/8th share in Ac.31.04 cents in government dry Sy.No.13 (Ac.3.88 cents) and 1/10th share in Ac.22.08 cents in government dry Sy.No.10 (i.e., Ac.2.20 cents) of Gurrambylu revenue village and some other property. He gifted away the said property to (i) Poteri Gurappa, (ii) Poteri Gangappa, both sons of Poteri Tatappa and (iii) Venkatamma W/o Potteri Gangappa and daughter of Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vanappa, under a registered sale deed, dated 23.01.1998, and delivered possession of the property to them. They accepted the gift and took possession of the property and were in possession and enjoyment. Though joint extents were shown in the gift deed, Sande Vannappa and other co-owners of the said survey numbers divided the properties and enjoying their respective properties for long time. Later on, Poteri Gurappa died unmarried. Poteri Gangappa also died leaving behind him his wife, Poteri Venkatamma and daughter Gadudala Beeramma W/o Ramappa of Yaraguntapalle as his legal representative to succeed his estate and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Poteri Venkatamma and her daughter, Gadudala Beeramma, divided the properties by mutual consent long back. Later on, Poteri Gurappa died unmarried. Poteri Gangappa also died leaving behind him his wife, Poteri Venkatamma and daughter Gadudala Beeramma W/o Ramappa of Yaraguntapalle as his legal representative to succeed his estate and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Poteri Venkatamma and her daughter, Gadudala Beeramma, divided the properties by mutual consent long back. In the division, Poteri Venkatamma was enjoying the petition schedule property while the other property was enjoyed by G.Beeramma. Thereafter, Poteri Venkatamma gifted away the plaint schedule property to her daughter, Beeramma out of love and affection under a registered gift deed, dated 09.01.1974, bearing document No.18/1974 and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to her. The gift was accepted by Gadudala Beeramma. She took possession of the property and since then, she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Gadudala Beeramma executed a Will, dated 26.03.2013, in a sound and disposing state of mind and with her own Will and volition bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff who is one of her sons out of her love and affection. Gadudala Beeramma died on 17.06.2013 on which day her Will took effect and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The revenue authorities effected mutation of the name of the plaintiff in adangal/pahani and 1-B (ROR) register. The Tahasildar, Tanakal, granted pattadar passbook and title deed to the plaintiff regarding the petition schedule property, on due enquiry. The defendants, who have no manner of right to and possession of any part of the plaint schedule property at any point of time are trying to interfere with the right and possession of the plaintiff over the plant schedule property and taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff and due to the differences that arose recently between the plaintiff and defendants on account of village politics and steep rise in the market value of the landed properties. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction and also interim petition seeking the relief of temporary injunction pending the suit. 4(a). The 1st respondent filed counter and the same has been adopted by respondents 2 to 4. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction and also interim petition seeking the relief of temporary injunction pending the suit. 4(a). The 1st respondent filed counter and the same has been adopted by respondents 2 to 4. The case of the respondent/ defendant is that it is true that Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vannappa S/o Beerappa owned and possessed the properties and he executed registered gift deed, dated 23.01.1998, as pleaded in the plaint and further admitting that Poteri Gangappa died unmarried. It is further pleaded that it is false that Poteri Gangappa died leaving behind him his wife, Venkatamma and daughter, Beeramma, alone as his legal representatives since Poteri Gangappa died leaving behind him his wife, Venkatamma and two daughters viz., Pathakanudkuru Uttamma W/o Chandrayappa and G. Beeramma w/o Ramappa as his only legal heirs. The further allegation that Venkatamma and Beeramma divided the properties by mutual consent and they were enjoying the property and that Venkatamma executed gift deed in favour of G.Beeramma under registered gift deed, dated 09.01.1974, and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to her are denied and stated that Venkatamma had no right or possession over the plaint schedule property to convey the same to G.Beeramma as on 09.01.1974. Similarly, they denied the allegation that G. Beeramma who is said to have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property executed a Will, dated 26.03.2013, to the plaintiff and the plaintiff took possession of the property and became absolute owner on the death of G.Beeramma on 17.06.2013. They pleaded that the Will, dated 26.03.2013, said to have been executed by G.Beeramma is false and the fabricated document and further that G.Beeramma had no right over the plaint schedule property and she cannot convey the same to anybody. It is further pleaded that Gangappa went as illatum son-in-law of Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vannappa after marrying Venkatamma and in a settlement between Gangappa, Gurrappa, and Potteri Venkatamma, all the properties covered by gift deed, dated 23.01.1928, were given to Gangappa and his wife Venkatamma. The sur-name of Gurrappa and Beeramma is Potteri. It is further pleaded that Gangappa went as illatum son-in-law of Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vannappa after marrying Venkatamma and in a settlement between Gangappa, Gurrappa, and Potteri Venkatamma, all the properties covered by gift deed, dated 23.01.1928, were given to Gangappa and his wife Venkatamma. The sur-name of Gurrappa and Beeramma is Potteri. The said Gangappa and his wife Venkatamma died and all their properties devolved on their daughters Uthamma and Beeramma and thus, they were in possession and enjoyment of the above said properties in their own right and they divided their properties long ago and in the said division, the plots of Sande Vannappa in Sy.Nos.10,12,13 and 17 fell to the share of Smt. Uttamma and whereas Beeramma has got some other properties and thus after the death of Uttamma, the plots in those survey numbers devolved on her sons, the 1st defendant and his brother Beerappa, who is the father of defendants 2 to 4 and thus the 1st defendant and his brother, Beerappa divided their properties about more than 27 years ago and the 1st defendant got the properties mentioned in the schedule of the written statement and other property to his share. Thus, the 1st defendant became absolute owner of these properties and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of them since then. Pattadar passbook was also issued to this defendant after thorough enquiry. Several transactions took place pertaining to the land in these survey numbers. Gowdukulam Pedda Narayana, Gowdukulam Chinna Narayana filed O.S.No.213 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, against Pathakandukuri Beerappa and others for permanent injunction. This defendant is the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff is the defendant No.11 in the said suit. The items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule mentioned properties are items 1 and 3 in the schedule of the said suit. Pathakandukuru Beerappa died during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.213 of 1989 and the defendants 2 to 4 were added as defendants 14 to 16 to the said suit being the legal heirs of Pathakandukuru Beerappa. This defendant filed O.S.No170 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, against Gowdukulam Pedda Narayana, Gowdukulam Chinna Narayana, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.213 of 1989 for permanent injunction in respect of items 1 and 2 of the written statement schedule mentioned properties. This defendant filed O.S.No170 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, against Gowdukulam Pedda Narayana, Gowdukulam Chinna Narayana, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.213 of 1989 for permanent injunction in respect of items 1 and 2 of the written statement schedule mentioned properties. While the said suits in O.S.Nos.213 of 1989 and 170 of 2002 were pending, Gowdukulam Pedda Narayana and Gowdukulam Chinna Narayana, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.213 of 1989 and this defendant affected compromise before the Lok Adalat on 07.8.2007. As per the terms of the said compromise, items 1 and 2 of the written statement schedule property were allotted to this defendant. The plaintiff is well aware of the said fact. (b) Nextlly, it is pleaded that Potteri Gangappa and his wife Poteri Venkatamma were also enjoying Ac.2.00 cents and Ac.0.50 cents, a specific plot in S.No.13 apart from Ac.1.00 cents specific plot. Potteri Gangappa and Poteri Venkatama, out of love and affection and out of their free will and volition and in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed a Will, on 06.11.1957 bequeathing the above said two specific plots of Ac.2.00 cents and Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.13 in favour of this defendant and some other property in favour of Beeramma, the mother of the plaintiff. The said Will, dated 06.11.1957, is the last Will and testament of Poteri Gangappa and Poteri Venkatamma. Poteri Gangappa died in the year 1961 and Potteri Venkatamma died subsequently. Thus, the Will, dated 06.11.1957, took effect and the 1st defendant took possession of these properties mentioned in ‘A’ schedule of the said Will. They are shown as item Nos.4 & 5 of the written statement schedule. (c) The ancestors of the plaintiff sold away their right in the suit schedule property in Sy.No.10 long ago. The allegation regarding the mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbooks after due enquiry is false. No notice was served on the 1st defendant and no enquiry was conducted after the alleged mutations or issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. The plaintiff must have manipulated the revenue records in collusion with the authorities and they are non est in the eye of law and not binding on the 1st defendant. No notice was served on the 1st defendant and no enquiry was conducted after the alleged mutations or issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. The plaintiff must have manipulated the revenue records in collusion with the authorities and they are non est in the eye of law and not binding on the 1st defendant. The allegation that due to recent political disputes etc., the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment shown in the plaint schedule is false. The suit was filed with false, frivolous and concocted allegations to obtain injunction by misleading the facts and to cause loss, injury and humiliation to the 1st defendant. It is further pleaded that the suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. (d) In this backdrop, they filed counter opposing grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff stating that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, exhibits P1 to P7 are marked and on behalf of the respondents, exhibits R1 to R11 were marked. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition and granted temporary injunction observing that exhibits P1 to P7 reflect prima facie case of the petitioner and they cannot be regarded as documents manipulated in collusion with the revenue officials and these records have to be viewed as prepared in the normal course of the official duty and thus, these records show prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. It is further observed that the resistance made by the respondents by filing exhibits R1 to R11 by questioning the case of the petitioners cannot be countenanced at that stage and that these aspects raised by the respondents have to be delved in the ensuing trial by examination of witnesses. It is also observed that altogether the respondents are four in number whereas the petitioner is alone and in these circumstances, the corporal right of the petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property will be disturbed in the light of the fraud played and further found that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioner than in favor of the respondents and the petitioner is likely to put to irreparable loss, if injunction is refused than the respondents would be put if injunction is granted. 7. 7. Having been aggrieved by the same, the respondents/ defendants preferred C.M.A.No.34 of 2015 which was allowed by the appellate Court and the interim injunction granted was set aside after examining the documents of both parties and the case pleaded by them. It is observed by the lower appellate Court that the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed document No.3, adangal or land revenue receipt to prove prima facie that the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue record and paying tax in respect of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Similarly, the appellate Court, after examining each document filed by the respondents observed that these documents do not help the respondents/defendants to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It further made observation that the trial Court did not consider the documents filed by both the parties for granting temporary injunction and in the absence of any such positive documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction. It is further observed that the findings recorded by the trial Court are not in accordance with law. As such, the appellate Court allowed C.M.A.No.34 of 2015. 8. Having been aggrieved of the same, the present revision petition is field by the petitioner/plaintiff contending that the trial Court passed the order impugned contrary to law, weight of evidence and material on record and it went wrong in deciding the possession of the suit schedule property whereas the trial Court elaborately discussed the aspect of possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitioner/plaintiff and further the appellate Court got confused regarding the survey number of the suit schedule property as both parties have property in the same survey numbers in different extents. 9. Learned counsel for both parties contends in support of the pleadings taken by them respectively and also the observations of the Court concerned which passed the orders favourable to them. 9. Learned counsel for both parties contends in support of the pleadings taken by them respectively and also the observations of the Court concerned which passed the orders favourable to them. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that suppression of material fact that Venkatamma has two daughters, Uttamma and Beeramma itself goes to the root of the matter since the right of Venkatamma or Beeramma cannot be exercised as pleaded by the plaintiff and the Will executed by Venkatamma and her husband, Gangappa, filed by the respondents clearly indicate that they have two daughters. But, suppressing the very material fact, the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands as if they have only one daughter, Beeramma, and the entire property has been divided between Venkatamma and Beeramma and later Venkatamma bequeathed all her property of half share to Beeramma, the mother of the plaintiff. Even in the light of such serious dispute made by the respondents, the trial Court has erroneously skipped to look into the case of both parties and considered the documents filed by both parties to come to the conclusion that there exists a prima facie case and also balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. 10. Since the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of authority of this Court to interfere with the impugned order is decided by a catena of decisions. 11. This Court, in M.B.Chander v. M/s. Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, (2016) 6 ALT 1 , at paragraph Nos.35 & 37 held as follows : “35. This Court while exercising power under Article 227 can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances: (a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. (b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction. (c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. (i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise. 37. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. (i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise. 37. Similarly, the Court cannot exercise its discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: (a) Where the only question involved is one of interpretation of deed; (b) On question of admission or rejection of particular piece of evidence, even though the question may be of everyday recurrence; (c) To correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, as a Court of revision; (d) To set aside an intra vires finding of the fact, except where it is founded on no material or is perverse; (e) to correct an error of law, not being an error apparent on the face of the record; (f) to interfere with the intra vires exercise of discretionary power, unless it is violative of principles of natural justice; (g) The Court shall not interfere on a merely technical ground which would not advance substantial justice. 12. Further, it is relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court in Seema Arshad Zaheer and others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, 2006 (5) ALD 1 (SC) , wherein at paragraph Nos.26, 29 & 31, it was held as follows: “26. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in exercise of its discretion, should not ordinarily be interfered by the appellate court, by reappreciating the entire material merely because another view is possible. It is also submitted that refusal of temporary injunction would lead to immediate demolition, causing of irreparable injury to the Petitioners and rendering their suits infructuous. Strong reliance is placed on the following observations of this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727) in regard to grant of temporary injunction and interference by the appellate courts in regard to such discretionary order: (SCC pp. 731-33, paras 9 & 14). Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the Plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. 731-33, paras 9 & 14). Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the Plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well-settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated .... is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the Defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case.... .....the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. 29. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. 29. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the Plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the Plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the Plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the Defendant's rights or likely infringement of the Defendant's rights, the balance of convenience titling in favour of the Plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the Plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the Plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands. 31. Where the lower court acts arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely in the exercise of its discretion, the appellate court will interfere. Exercise of discretion by granting a temporary injunction when there is "no material", or refusing to grant a temporary injunction by ignoring the relevant documents produced. When we refer to acting on "no material" (similar to "no evidence"), we refer not only to cases where there is total dearth of material, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the exercise of discretion. In this case, there was "no material" to make out a prima facie case and therefore, the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, was justified in interfering in the matter and vacating the temporary injunction granted by the trial court. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court in the seven appeals. We accordingly dismiss these SLPs as having no merit. The Petitioners are granted 15 days time to make alternative arrangements. Parties to bear their respective costs. 13. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court in the seven appeals. We accordingly dismiss these SLPs as having no merit. The Petitioners are granted 15 days time to make alternative arrangements. Parties to bear their respective costs. 13. A look at the order passed by the trial Court indicates that it has not at all paid attention to examine the case of the petitioner/ plaintiff in the light of the defence taken by the respondents and has just applied the case of the petitioner on the basis of the record filed and totally ignored to consider the case and evidence of the respondents. It is indicative of failure of jurisdiction vested on the trial Court to take a balanced view on considering the case and evidence of both parties. Under these circumstances, the interference by the appellate Court is justified. The appellate Court has considered the documents of both parties and has taken a view that the petitioner is not entitled to interim injunction for failure to establish possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As such, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the light of the well settled principles, does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the appellate Court, as there is no error apparent on record. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality committed while passing the order or any other justified reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.